=== utlemming is now known as utlemming_307
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
[08:38] <NCommander> skaet: ping, I'm moving the release date for mx5 server since preinstall pool hasn't landed yet and I rather not push something completely broken and untested
[09:07] <ogra_> NCommander, release date ?
[09:07] <ogra_> NCommander, isnt that bound to milesones anyway ?
[09:07] <NCommander> ogra_: er date we would hav efirst images
[09:07] <NCommander> ogra_: not directly
[09:07] <ogra_> (i.e. next official release date for new images would be A3)
[09:07] <ogra_> does that matter ?
[09:08] <ogra_> we want *working* images by next milestone
[09:08] <ogra_> if they work on first cut they can as well go in on milestone freeze date (ulikely they will indeed)
[12:25] <Laney> are archive days still happening?
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== doko_ is now known as doko
[13:23] <skaet> NCommander,  just go ahead and update first image date to your best prediction.   ogra_'s is correct, first release date is a milestone.
=== utlemming_307 is now known as utlemming
=== seb128_ is now known as seb128
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch
[18:13] <skaet> ScottK,  any reason why the Kubuntu images for Karmic, Dapper can't be moved off cdimages to old-images (http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/kubuntu/)  now?
[20:31] <ScottK> skaet: No.  I'm suprised they weren't moved long ago.
[20:32] <skaet> ScottK,  Thanks.  :)
[20:39] <Laney> so I'm just watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snXPtQpl3b0 in which ScottK mentions that the freeze guidelines aren't clear
[20:39] <Laney> looks like they haven't been updated since then...
[20:39] <ScottK> I think they are perfectly clear and have no clue why people get them wrong.
[20:40] <Laney> ok, that some people think they aren't clear
[20:40] <ScottK> How can U/I freeze possibly mean that features that affect U/I are exempt from feature freeze?
[20:40] <Laney> I'm looking at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureFreeze and it seems like it doesn't clearly express the de facto 'bug fixes are ok' policy as well as it could
[20:40] <ScottK> It's just mind boggling.
[20:41] <ScottK> Possibly.
[20:41] <ScottK> I think the bigger problem is people landing crap at the last minute and then coming up with lame excuses why they thought it was OK.
[20:41] <ScottK> I certainly don't object to more clarity.
[20:44] <Laney> Having not been on the team for a freeze period before I can't really comment, but I do have that impression too.
[20:48] <Laney> Do people respect the 'file a bug for all bug fix uploads after FF' requirement? It seems a bit heavyweight — wouldn't it be better as 'explain that this is a bug fix release in the changelog or sync request'?
[20:58] <seb128> Laney, in practice I've not seen lot of bugs for those
[20:58] <Laney> yeah
[21:00] <Laney> right well I just went ahead and changed it. We can discuss if someone doesn't like it.
[21:01] <ScottK> Laney: I think that's fine.  We did that when we first started allowing it.  I think it's time has passed.
[21:02] <ScottK> It used to be ALL new upstream releases needed an FFe, so just requiring the bug to document it was, in fact, lighter weight at the time.
[21:02] <Laney> Right.
[21:03] <Laney> and after reading these I can't find out how you could confuse UIF and FF
[21:03] <Laney> so I'm on your side here.
=== skaet is now known as skaet_afk
=== skaet_afk is now known as skaet
=== Ursinha-lunch is now known as Ursinha